slamspurs

What are u worried about. Saints have to score 2 tds to cover. 

The other guy put up 0 first half as well. What choices do they have. 

Not a good weekend, or really season for dog players other than the first month. 

Hate these types of games. You really look like a genius or a fool. Zero reason to be taking the Saints tonight. 

Gonna be 27-3 or 17-16. 

This is one of those predictions nobody pays attention to. Cuz if you're right about a 6 or a 9 to 1 you can brag and claim you're a genius. But nobody can really come back and rag on you for it, because it was a long shot anyways. 

Yeah, I'll say New Orleans loses by 1 pt 

Thanks Claw. I was going in too many directions this week. You helped clear things up for me. 

I've tried to play contrarian with this series for years now, and it never works. The games are always close.

The underdog is 9-1 ATS in the last 10. Just take the points or you'll be kicking yourself. Especially after the Steelers looked like garbage last week and the Ravens and Lamar had 5 TDs. 

Yeah not lookin good for Arizona. Looks like SF has a better chance of covering than them. 

Not to be a smartass Wizer, but If Seattle is "done" as you say, why do you need to tease Arizona up to +8 and couple them with SF +8 in a teaser, rather than just playing Arizona straight up? 

There's a guy on youtube that's mentioned multiple times that the "Off a Bye Week" angle is a fictional strength. 

Yes, there are famous coaches that do really well off bye weeks. I think it's like Andy Reid and John Harbaugh. 

But according to the data, most teams are under .500 ATS coming off their bye week. Colin Cowherd mentions "off a bye" all the time. It's an old school mentality, like people who say you need to change your oil every 3,000 miles. 

IT'S NOT TRUE! But it's so baked into gambler's mindsets, that they'll never shake it. You'll be hearing off a bye week as a positive til the end of time. 

Been tracking the line since Sunday night. From what I've seen, Seattle opened at -1, then Arizona went to pickem or -1, now it's mixed. I'd say most places have Seattle -1.5 right now with extra juce on AZ. Caesars has it at pickem with juice on Seattle, and MGM is the lone book with Pickem ML -110 or Arizona -1.

So from what I've seen, the line is moving in Seattle's direction early in the week. 

I don't think the line will matter either way who is eventually the -1 or -1.5 or -2.5 here, as long as it's not hitting the key -3/+3 number. The ML on either side is pretty much pickem, unlike the GB/SF game where SF ML is +120. 

The question for me is who is the better team here.

Yes, the Cardinals has won 1 more game than the Seahawks.

Seattle has played 2 games without Kenneth Walker (won both), and 2 games without DK Metcalf (both home losses).

Arizona’s core of Murray, Conner, Harrison Jr., and McBride have missed a total of one game this season.

Arizona is off two blowout wins against the Jets who despite the talent are 3-8, and the Bears who have lost 4 games in a row. The wins look nice on paper, but are those good teams?

Let’s just say for the sake of argument that Arizona is the better team here.

My question is, how much better is Arizona than Seattle? A lot better or a little better?

Another streak to consider.

Seattle has beaten Arizona 5 games in a row…. overall.

I agree that the Bears could have gotten a king's ransom for Caleb Williams, but I think they did okay. 

Why are we on the Justin Fields bandwagon still? The guy got benched by a very respected coach while having a winning record, in favor of a guy whose career was supposedly over (Russell Wilson). Russ is 3-0, with the offense averaging 30.33 points a game. Justin Fields lost to Dallas this season .

Fields doesn't have the It Factor. True franchise QBs you typically know it within the first few games. Fields has played for 4 years and still hasn't proven that he has it. 

Just some quick examples of franchise QBs and their quick evolution.

Joe Burrow had 6 TD passes and three 300 yard passing games in his first 4 games on a Cincy team that had the worst record in the league the season prior. You knew Burrow was good from the very beginning. 

Patrick Mahomes had 284 yards passing in a his first ever start and won the super bowl his first year starting.

Lamar Jackson ran a lot his first season. Basically a RB like Fields, but had 36 TDs and 6 INTs the year after and won an MVP. 

Josh Allen steadily got better, but had MVP type stats by his third year. 

Jordan Love had 6 TD passes his first 2 games last season, slumped a bit in between then finished off strong in his first year a starter. 

Justin Herbert had 31 TDs and 10 INTs in his rookie season. You knew he was a franchise QB from the preseason basically. 

Jayden Daniels is actually a good comp. His first few games, not a lot of TD passes, not a long of yards, but productive as a runner. Now he's averaging roughly 250 yards a game afterwards, and doesn't have double digit carries in his last 6 games because he's evolving as a passer. 

CJ Stroud is another one. but you get the point by now. None of these guys you were in year 4 and wondering if they were any good still.  

You could argue that I am only naming true franchise QBs, but if you go through the list of teams that you would consider having franchise QBs, it's more than you think, and most of them were pretty decent from the beginning, or picked up the game quickly. If you're excited about your team turning a guy into a glorified game manager after 5 years on the team, go ahead. 

I'm a proponent of drafting a QB every year until you find the franchise QB. You can usually offload their contract to someone on potential alone afterwards. 

Part of the reason I didn't think Daniels wasn't going to be any good was because he played 3 years at Arizona State, and had a whopping 10 TDs and 10 INTs in 13 games in his last season there. Then he comes to LSU and lit it up with a new team. Just proving the that some people need the right system and the right coaching to succeed, and aren't naturally gifted to work with anyone. He's very lucky to have Kliff Kingsbury as his offensive coordinator. He'll have his pick of many jobs this offseason. 

Green Bay 10-0 SU and ATS last 10 vs. Bears. Can't mess with that. 

Haven't had much luck betting Buffalo the past few years. I've bet against them on +7.5s or +8.5s against bad teams, and they make me look silly most of the time with blowouts. Then I bet them to win on short lines like against Baltimore and they completely burn me.

This is the first 3 peat attempt in a long time, and the sooner KC gets this undefeated thing over with, the better for them. I just don't think it comes this week. Neither team really needs this game. Buffalo is up 4.5 games in the division with 7 to go. KC is up 3 games on the Chargers (with the tiebreak), who will probably beat them in KC. 

Buffalo could probably lose out and still win the division. Two good teams, but the implications of the game aren't that big either way. 

KC can make it a 4 game lead with a win, and a Chargers loss to Cincy, but I think Chargers take that one as well. 

It's absolutely shocking to me that Green Bay would get the field goal and the hook at home against a division rival. I don't care what Detroit has done lately. The Packers are a 6-2 team and getting points at home against a 6-1 team. I suppose the line was 3.5 earlier in the week before Jordan Love progressed a little bit through the injury. 

I'd wait to make a play on that. I think it's too much value to take the Packers if Jordan Love plays.

I think the Lions are more likely to lay an egg next week against Houston, who will be missing Diggs and Nico Collins, and coming off a loss against the 2-6 Jets. 

Also not liking the Atlanta play really. If anyone needs a bounce factor, it's probably Dallas. Yeah, they had a couple of nice TDs in garbage time last week, but they have not played well the last two games. I lean Dallas in this spot, but I'm pretty low on Dallas even re-entering the playoff conversation at any point moving forward. 

Giants - I think it's a great spot to take the Giants here. Enough said. 

I'm still waiting for the Chargers to hit their stride this season. They haven't been able to string together good performances all year.

I wouldn't say it was a good performance last week either. They won, and covered, but it was a pretty sloppy performance last week until the end. I believe the Chargers lead the NFL in offensive 3 and Outs.

What did happen last week was I believe the Chargers first big play of the season. A Ladd Mcconkey 60 yard TD catch. Maybe the offense is starting to click more, because that took a long time to happen. 

I also don't like betting teams that just had signature wins. Big upset win against the Ravens last week makes it not a great spot for the Browns.

And I don't know where you get that the Browns have a better defense. The Chargers are 8th in total defense and the Browns are 14th. Though I will concede that the Browns have played a tougher schedule defensively. 

Either way, I like the Chargers this week as well. Jameis is playing better than he did in New Orleans. The knock on him was that he had great offensive stats, but threw too many picks. This neutered him a bit and he was too scared of making mistakes, so he would barely move the ball. 

The Ravens were an easy matchup for Jameis to exploit. Ravens ranked dead last in passing yards allowed per game (291). That's pretty "sik". 

Some of you guys make no sense. "Rigging for Rodgers." The Jets were 2-6, and played on primetime with a short line twice already and lost both times. 

Game may have been rigged, but he doesn't get this every time like you think. 

You must be in your early 20s. The shin thing happened in a primetime game like 10 years ago. It's known that a shin counts as a knee.